U.S. officials gave instructions for Benghazi Medical Center to use a "John Doe" pseudonym on the death certificate of Ambassador Christopher Stevens
after he died of asphyxiation in the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

That's according to a U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity because the official isn't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The
reason for the pseudonym, says the official, was to avoid drawing undue attention to the importance of the victim as Americans rushed to figure out
how to recover Stevens' body and return it to the U.S.

The official provided the most complete accounting yet of Stevens' whereabouts and passing in the eight and a half months since his death.

It appears as if the administration was very much concerned that AQ terrorists in Benghazi had set a trap at the hospital and would use the
Ambassador's body as bait.

Obviously, another indication that the administration was fully aware AT THE TIME that AQ was on the ground, active in...and responsible for this
attack and murders...and that this was not the result of video-protesters.

It looks as if MORE whistle-blowers and anonymous sources are lining up and starting to come forward and are beginning to speak to the press (even to
CBS!)...on Benghazi. Sadly, we are only now starting to hear details over 8 months after the fact.
I've no doubt that the dam is about to burst...and FINALLY the American people will get the full story on what happened that sad and fateful night in
Benghazi.

We are getting it because the administration screwed up.Prior administrations have without a shadow of a doubt done far worse things but they were
successful in covering it up.Now that we see it we can jump on it and ,maybe,put a stop to some of it.

given this was a news worthy attack, that the names of the deceased would be all over the news wires as soon as they were discovered, I think it makes
sense to keep it under wraps until the situation was under control and the families notified.
I would imagine this out of the ordinary when there's a high profile death or hospitalization.

The reason for the pseudonym, says the official, was to avoid drawing undue attention to the importance of the victim as Americans rushed to
figure out how to recover Stevens' body and return it to the U.S.

Makes sense to me, regardless of the confusion over the matter.

God forbid the body goes missing on top of his unfortunate death based on the status of position of the individual.

This is just one miniscule pieces of the puzzle that is the Benghazi scenario and I dont really think its an overly critical one. Though it does
suggest that many details are still likely hidden.

I agree that it was a prudent thing to do, considering the gravity of the situation.
What is perplexing, however, is WHY are these details only coming out now; why were they kept from us for so long; not being in the official
report...and WHY do we only find out this detail (and others) from anonymous sources in the CIA...and not from our 'most transparent'
administration?

Originally posted by Crakeur
given this was a news worthy attack, that the names of the deceased would be all over the news wires as soon as they were discovered, I think it makes
sense to keep it under wraps until the situation was under control and the families notified.
I would imagine this out of the ordinary when there's a high profile death or hospitalization.

Agreed...In similair scenarios, AQ or not, Americans (dead and alive) have been paraded through streets by extremists as trophies.

I suspect the minute CIA was aware that Stevens was taken to the hospital, they did what they could to hide the fact from public knowledge.

And leaping from that to the Admin KNEW it was AQ...is a long leap. Even if the CIA was 80% sure it was protestors...which they weren't...they would
still obfuscate the whereabouts of Stevens dead or alive for security purposes.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.